Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
that the former is embedded in the latter (column 3, line 67 et
seq.). From our perspective, therefore, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that the two elements of the
Olmstead grommet are mechanically attached together, only, and
thus the limitations added by claims 13 and 14 inherently are
present in Olmstead. The Section 103 rejection of these two
claims is sustained.
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Olmstead in view of Patel, the latter being cited by the examiner
for its showing of a grommet having an oblong shape. Be that as
it may, claim 8 requires the presence of slits extending
partially through the base element, as did claim 7, and this is
not taught by Patel or, as we stated above, by Olmstead.
Therefore, this rejection of claim 8 is not sustained.
Claim 15 has no such requirement; its purpose is to add to
claim 1 the limitation that both the soft member and the rigid
member are made of “plastic materials.” Patel discloses a self
locking plug for insertion in a hole in a panel, with both the
soft member (22) and the rigid member (20) being formed of
plastic material (column 5, lines 30 through 37). As admitted by
the appellant on page 19 of the Brief, the two elements of the
Patel device are mechanically interlocked. It is the examiner’s
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007